I hate to say this, but I actually agree with the Evangelicals here. At present, the definition put out by the college singles out Christians, labeling them as oppressors, but fails to protect them from any discrimination that could be leveled at them. Also (I'd have to read the college policy guidelines to determine this) what type of behavior is said to constitute discrimination? Could a Chri...more

I hate to say this, but I actually agree with the Evangelicals here. At present, the definition put out by the college singles out Christians, labeling them as oppressors, but fails to protect them from any discrimination that could be leveled at them. Also (I'd have to read the college policy guidelines to determine this) what type of behavior is said to constitute discrimination? Could a Christian because considered to discriminate merely because they believe gays are sinners? While I support gay rights, I also believe this country has strong religious protections, which protect religious beliefs, though not all religious actions.

Taking all this into account, I'm convinced this current designation would violate the free speech clause as the definition is viewpoint biased, and also the Free Exercise Clause as it limits . I don't think the Establishment Clause would be implicated here, at least the way it currently is interpreted by the federal courts.less

Flagged as inappropriate. show

This is another example of why uniting church with government does not work: it creates an expectation in the religiously favored class for violent laws. Imagine if Christianity was national policy in the U.S. Eventually, you'd have Christian groups pushing for the same thing as the Muslims here. Of course, Christians are likely to argue that their religion is different and that they would preach forgiveness. I don't buy this for a second. Look at the Christian based governments in Europe in the Middle Ages who burned alleged heretics at the stake. Look at the Salem Witch Trials here in the U.S. where people where condemned to die merely because they had supposedly dabbled in witchcraft. "A union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion." (Justice Black, writing for the majority in Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962). hide

Another victory for America! Yes! The best thing for everyone is to keep religion and government separate. Christianity shouldn't be established, but neither should atheism. Instead, a middle ground, neutrality is the best means of governing. History proves this point well.

Exactly. I just finished reading a book by a former priest called "Constantine's Sword," which details the history of church sanctioned anti-semitism. Not a pretty history. It was only recently, in Vatican II, that the Catholic Church officially dropped the deicide charges against the Jews. Indeed, Christians celebrate Easter on a Sunday every year instead of following the Hebrew calendar of w...more

Exactly. I just finished reading a book by a former priest called "Constantine's Sword," which details the history of church sanctioned anti-semitism. Not a pretty history. It was only recently, in Vatican II, that the Catholic Church officially dropped the deicide charges against the Jews. Indeed, Christians celebrate Easter on a Sunday every year instead of following the Hebrew calendar of when Passover (which is when Christ's resurrection would have supposedly occurred according to the New Testament) occurs due to 4th century Jew hatred propounded by Roman emperor Constantine.

See: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/const1-easter.htmlless

shepherd9, Respectfully, there's a middle ground between the extremes of ambiguity (as I claim exists now as to whether God exists) and being a "robot" (as you claim would happen if God presented himself to everyone objectively). Let's take President Obama as an example. Regardless of whether you agree with his policies, you know he exists. Why? You've seen him on t.v., you've read artic...more

shepherd9,

Respectfully, there's a middle ground between the extremes of ambiguity (as I claim exists now as to whether God exists) and being a "robot" (as you claim would happen if God presented himself to everyone objectively).

Let's take President Obama as an example. Regardless of whether you agree with his policies, you know he exists. Why? You've seen him on t.v., you've read articles about him. Additionally, you've met other humans and so it's not so radical for there to be another human named Barack Obama who happened to be President.

Now take the concept of God. The Bible claims that God exists. Yet we've never met God face to face objectively. Many of us have never witnessed a miracle or anything that conflicts with natural law. Additionally, the concept of the Bible being infallible strikes many of us as odd as experience teaches us that the books we encounter everyday are written by errant people. Yet for all this, the Bible commands that we worship this supreme being and completely alter our life, even though we have no objective proof that he even exists!

Asking and praying aren't options, because for all we know it could be our emotions talking. Even if we FEEL God's presence from our prayers, it's still subjectivity. In short, there will always be doubt.

Presenting reasonable and objective proof of God's existence wouldn't make us mindless robots. It would be fair, allowing everybody a chance to follow this God, knowing he exists as opposed to relying on shadows and ancient legends. In sum, we'd still be free to sin, not follow him, etc., just like we're free to disagree with Obama's policies. The only difference is that I'd argue objectively presenting himself would be fair and loving.

Imagine a parent never directly showing himself to their child, but presenting vague clues about how they're supposed to act by leaving old writings lying around. No child would take such parenting seriously. In my opinion, that's how the Christian conception of God is, only he than damns people to hell for failing to cast logic and reasoning aside and follow him . . .less

The Christian conception of God isn't moral. He condemns all people to hell for the fault of our alleged ancestor, "Adam." He than claims that the only way to be saved is by believing in someone named Jesus who makes substitutionary atonement for our sins. Finally, he never OBJECTIVELY presents himself to people and instead expects people to cast aside common sense and believe in the miraculous ...more

The Christian conception of God isn't moral. He condemns all people to hell for the fault of our alleged ancestor, "Adam." He than claims that the only way to be saved is by believing in someone named Jesus who makes substitutionary atonement for our sins. Finally, he never OBJECTIVELY presents himself to people and instead expects people to cast aside common sense and believe in the miraculous accounts written in the Bible (all the while claiming that "he loves the world" as espoused in John 3:16). Those who can't make take this leap of faith because it appears to conflict with reason and observation are to burn in hell by his standards.

If the Judeo-Christian God is really God, couldn't he just erase the problem of sin altogether? Why require such a thing as substitutionary atonement anyway? Plus, if sin is in our nature and God created us, why punish us for something that He himself allowed us to do?less

Everhopeful, You stated: "I apply the same historical methodologies that I used studying such events as the French Revolution or people like Peter the Great to the evidence re: the reliablity of the Bible, the history of Christianity, etc." Christians always make this claim: i.e., that because archeology has proven that the historical accounts in the Bible are true, therefore the supernatur...more

Everhopeful,

You stated: "I apply the same historical methodologies that I used studying such events as the French Revolution or people like Peter the Great to the evidence re: the reliablity of the Bible, the history of Christianity, etc."

Christians always make this claim: i.e., that because archeology has proven that the historical accounts in the Bible are true, therefore the supernatural descriptions in the Bible are true.

What a blatant assumption!

I'll argue that evidence that historical events in the Bible are accurate should not necessarily be taken as proof that supernatural events in the Bible are true.

Why? Because the various historical events in the Bible (i.e. wars, land boundary disputes, architectural descriptions, etc.) have happened all throughout history and can even be directly witnessed by humans today. As I type this, I'm thinking about the Afghanistan war right now. As there's a war going on right now, it's plausible to INFER that wars went on in the past. As a result, when we discover evidence that seems to corroborate a past war, it's logical to infer that most likely, a war went on.

However, when it comes to supernatural encounters, I've never directly witnessed God. I've never seen him appear on T.V. like important leaders do. I've not seen a God directly heal someone like scripture claims. Based on all this, I think it is unfair to expect people to presume the existence of the Christian God based on a bunch of accounts in an ancient text.

Additionally, miracles also conflict with a host of basic scientific truths that govern the universe. For example, babies tend to be born through natural conception, not of virgins, I have seen people die and remain dead, and I have seen people injured remain injured. As we can directly witness these scientific principles occurring, I think a presumption that they remain in place at all times is warranted. As a result, the claims of an ancient book should be treated as fabrications.less

Old student, "A majority of battlefront Marines and Army personnel think this is a bad idea and will injure cohesiveness" Ah, but why will this "injure cohesiveness?" The reason is because of biases against gays promulgated by religious beliefs. I guarantee that if everyone was raised in families which taught that just because you believe something due to your religion doesn't mean that...more

Old student,

"A majority of battlefront Marines and Army personnel think this is a bad idea and will injure cohesiveness"

Ah, but why will this "injure cohesiveness?"

The reason is because of biases against gays promulgated by religious beliefs. I guarantee that if everyone was raised in families which taught that just because you believe something due to your religion doesn't mean that it should be forced on the population, and that people should be respected regardless of whether you disagree with their sexual orientation, these biases wouldn't exist. Thus, there'd be no worry of injury to unit cohesion in the first place.

However, people unfortunately aren't raised this way, and so the threat of injury does persist.

Yet, it's time to start somewhere. Truman desegregated the military in 1948, and they were fine. I'm betting military personnel claimed the same thing, they're claiming now. Thankfully, everyone got over the issue, just like they will eventually get over the repeal of DADT.less

DP, if I had my way, I'd allow exceptions from sterilizing, and of course, I'd ensure the procedure was reversible. Also, arguing that a person could in theory give birth to wonderful person is not a strong argument against birth control as the inverse could also be true (lousy, evil child). Birth control would cut down on the number of abortions, poverty stricken children in third world countri...more

DP, if I had my way, I'd allow exceptions from sterilizing, and of course, I'd ensure the procedure was reversible. Also, arguing that a person could in theory give birth to wonderful person is not a strong argument against birth control as the inverse could also be true (lousy, evil child). Birth control would cut down on the number of abortions, poverty stricken children in third world countries, etc.less

DP, My point is that the Catholic officials who hadn't directly examined the patient, chose to second guess the doctors who knew first hand the patient's condition. Apparently, they'd rather have had the patient die merely to prevent an abortion. Thus, this proves my point that they care more about banning abortions than preserving the health of already born people.

ljmac, While conservatives may donate more to private charities, many liberals have no problem with paying higher taxes and creating more government programs to help people (i.e. universal healthcare, for example). Also, if my claim that pro-lifers care more about the rights of the unborn than the already born is "baseless," how do explain this case?

So, DP, just because Hitler believed something automatically makes it wrong? By your logic, basic mathematics would have to be condemned, seeing as Hitler probably studied basic math (as well as linguistics, grammar, etc.) at some point in this life. I think your comment was made in attempts to marginalize my beliefs; afraid that I'm right.

My biggest issue with pro-lifers is that they often appear to care more about the rights of the unborn than the rights of already born people. This case provides an example of this. The bottom line is that the doctors treating the patient had direct access to her condition and thus would have been in a better position to understand her health than the Catholic Church officials. Obviously, t...more

My biggest issue with pro-lifers is that they often appear to care more about the rights of the unborn than the rights of already born people. This case provides an example of this.

The bottom line is that the doctors treating the patient had direct access to her condition and thus would have been in a better position to understand her health than the Catholic Church officials. Obviously, the hospital could have been wrong, but unless evidence proving this can be brought up, there's a presumption that the hospital accurately understood the women's condition and thus acted properly.

By stripping the hospital of its Catholic status, the church officials obviously chose to ignore this fact, preferring to enforce their prolife rhetoric. The ending result: the hospital has been punished from making the presumably wise decision in saving the mom.less

With this repeal, we are one step closer to abandoning discrimination from the military and are thankfully moving closer to a secular nation. The bottom line is that there's no secular reason for banning gays from serving. The only reasons stem from prejudice and fear which are promoted by particular extreme Christians/other faiths seeking to force their particular belief that scripture is inerr...more

With this repeal, we are one step closer to abandoning discrimination from the military and are thankfully moving closer to a secular nation. The bottom line is that there's no secular reason for banning gays from serving. The only reasons stem from prejudice and fear which are promoted by particular extreme Christians/other faiths seeking to force their particular belief that scripture is inerrant truth on the entire country.

Fundamentalists: worship/believe what you want privately, but centuries of violence by religion-government unions prove that having a secular government is the best thing for a society.

A few qualifiers:

1. Having a secular government is different than having an atheistic government, as some posters have accused me of wanting in the past. Atheistic governments also can be violent as they're seeking to enforce a set perspective. In contrast, secular governments tend to be more open to different cultures and traditions.

2. A secular government means a government that embraces laws and rules which have a purpose and effect apart from religion. So for example, a law banning murder would pass muster as protecting people is also a secular principle, whereas a law encouraging students to pray to Jesus in public school classrooms would not, as there's no basis for this law apart from a particular religious belief.less

I agree with Sanger's quotes here. If I had my way, people below a certain income/intelligence level would be encouraged to sterilize themselves. Those determined to be mentally dangerous (serial killers) or mentally retarded (someone deemed clinically retarded) wouldn't get an option. In all cases, I'd make sure the procedure could be reversible, in theory. The bottom line is that work-s...more

I agree with Sanger's quotes here. If I had my way, people below a certain income/intelligence level would be encouraged to sterilize themselves. Those determined to be mentally dangerous (serial killers) or mentally retarded (someone deemed clinically retarded) wouldn't get an option.

In all cases, I'd make sure the procedure could be reversible, in theory.

The bottom line is that work-shy urban mamas keep having kids who will eventually, statistically speaking become a drain on society. Also, studies have shown that middle class/upper middle class families (i.e. people who are productive and educated) tend to have less kids these days. If these figures continue, exponentially speaking, we're going to be living in a welfare nation victimized by crime and ignorance.

The benefit to sterilizing people is that it would completely bypass the whole abortion debate, though I'm know some pro-lifers, would argue that the act of blocking one's potential to become pregnant is equally wrong. Frankly, this is just plain stupid and also self centered as it's putting the individual before the society that the individual benefits from.less

Other religions aren't off the hook either, but my attention span has waned.

The great thing about being in America is that I can insult Allah all I want thanks to a wonderful right known as freedom of speech: Allah, you are a non-existent, stupid God. A complete waste of space. Your religion is based on violence, killing Jews and Christians, and condoning suicide bombers. The fact that people in Muslim countries passed blasphemy laws in the first place shows how ignor...more

The great thing about being in America is that I can insult Allah all I want thanks to a wonderful right known as freedom of speech: Allah, you are a non-existent, stupid God. A complete waste of space. Your religion is based on violence, killing Jews and Christians, and condoning suicide bombers. The fact that people in Muslim countries passed blasphemy laws in the first place shows how ignorant and stupid many of your followers are.less

Prophet, "And an atheistic government would be any different?" I'm not talking about having an atheistic government! I'm talking about having a government based on secular ideals. This would weed out religious based laws without a secular purpose such as blasphemy laws, laws banning gay marriage or consenting gay relationships, and laws requiring the teaching of Christian-based creation "s...more

Prophet,

"And an atheistic government would be any different?"

I'm not talking about having an atheistic government! I'm talking about having a government based on secular ideals. This would weed out religious based laws without a secular purpose such as blasphemy laws, laws banning gay marriage or consenting gay relationships, and laws requiring the teaching of Christian-based creation "science" in public school science classes.

Under such a government, it would be just as wrong to persecute Christians who are privately practicing their beliefs as it would to persecute atheists, agnostics, etc. Belief would be left to private individuals, while the government itself would encourage secularism, a relatively more tolerant viewpoint than exclusive religious beliefs held by Muslims, Jews, and Christians.less

Believer, I get what you're saying. The bottom line is all throughout U.S. history tolerance has had to be forced on people. Examples: the 13th Amendment (prohibits slavery), Brown v. Board of education (ruled against segregation), and the civil rights act of 1964 (provided for equal treatment on the basis of race, religion, national origin, etc.).

Prophet, It is you who is detached from reality if you assume that a church-state united government would only contain genuine believers and no individuals seeking to use the religious based government to accomplish their personal agenda. Again, centuries of church-state united governments by Catholics, Protestants, and Muslims should tell you that governments based on religion DO NOT WOR...more

Prophet,

It is you who is detached from reality if you assume that a church-state united government would only contain genuine believers and no individuals seeking to use the religious based government to accomplish their personal agenda.

Again, centuries of church-state united governments by Catholics, Protestants, and Muslims should tell you that governments based on religion DO NOT WORK and result in serious persecution of others as well as corruption of the faith itself with non-believers posing as believers.

I agree with you that genuine Christians wouldn't resort to violence, but when you set up a position of power for religious people to take advantage of, what makes you think the tares won't mix in with the wheat? Best to keep religion private where it won't be used to hurt or maim others of differing viewpoints and where it won't be corrupted by the need for worldly compromise.

P.S. you are one of the rudest and angriest people I've debated on this site. I'm convinced you're either very young and/or very immature. Not every one is going to agree with you in the real world, so you best get used to having respectful conversations with others.less